Moreover, the op-ed agrees with what I’m hearing from people I know who live there - there simply is no legitimate appetite for splitting the country, aside from a tiny minority.
All anecdotal of course, but in these circumstances it’s as good evidence as one could reasonably obtain.
What ois particularly troubling to me is that Russia, and its supporters, seem to be reading from a Stalin-era playbook - its opponents are labelled as “fascists” and “foreign stooges” no matter what their actual motives, the use of the “big lie” blatantly contradicting reality without the slightest care that it is transparent (for example, “there is no Russian invasion in Crimea”). It’s chillingly Orwellian.
That it was made under duress. If you don’t buy that, fine, but I can’t take a vote seriously that comes under those violent circumstances with a mob controlling the government buildings
Yes, in order to successfully take the place over, it is prudent to disable the control centers.
Not until it started to look very much like that to Putin. With a possible revolution in progress and an overthrow of a Russian friendly government, why would you expect him to just sit on his hands?
That raises the problem of what one does in circumstances of popular rebellion. Naturally, having a rebellion on the doorstep of the legislature calls into question whether that legislature is operating under duress or not - that’s unavoidable. So what is to be done?
I’d say creating an interim government and holding elections under the scrutiny of impartial international observers is the best way forward in such circumstances, to restore legitimacy.
I would not say that re-imposing the deposed leader by foreign military coercion is a good way to restore legitimacy - how legitimate can a government be, that needs foreign troops to impose? Let alone having foreign powers help themselves to slices of territory with the excuse that they are ‘protecting minorities’!
What you are missing is the question - why take the place over in the first place?
I disagree that a regime change in Kiev was in any way a resonable threat to the Black Seas bases. The regime in Kiev is weak as hell. No reasonable person would conclude that they are at all likely to pick a shooting war with Russia. That defies sense.
Putin rushed to act. Having the benefit of even a few days of hind-sight of events in Kiev, we have the luxury to say that the Kiev regime was weak and would not threaten Russia’s Black Sea interests. But he did not know how things would play out and took the most defensive (and opportunistic) course of action with what information he did have. We’re Monday morning quarterbacking here.
I don’t agree in the slightest. Russia always knew that Ukraine was weak and dependant on it - before, during, and after the events. There is simply no way that a new regime in Kiev would be able to magically make Ukraine powerful and independent of Russia overnight! Russia knows this like it knows that stones do not fall up. It is an obvious reality.
The notion that Russia had legitimate fears for its bases is a non-starter. Russia did not even attempt to use that as a justification, as far as I know - its justification was ‘protection of minorities’.
Frankly, I’m amazed at the lack of anti-minority actions in Ukraine so far (I’d have thought that the Russians would at least have ‘created’ a few, if only for the look of the thing).
I completely agree with you on this point. The ‘protection of minorities’ is a ruse. However, I continue to believe that the instability in Ukraine was an opportunity for Putin to try to claim Crimea. A place with a majority Russian speaking population and a large Russian naval base. I also think that he did not know for sure whether he’d have to fight his way through later, so he jumped at the chance to grab it while the focus remained on Kiev. A decision which he is probably having some serious regrets right about now.
I don’t think he’s regretting it. I am fairly certain he is going to get away with it with no serious consequences. As I said, Putin considers the West to be decadent, soft, weak and greedy and thinks the Western governments are not going to inconvenience themselves in any way or put any stress on their economies for the sake of Crimea. And I think he is correct.
